TRADE DEBATE TAKES A ROLE IN CAMPAIGNS

By SUSAN F. RASKY, Special to the New York Times

Published: July 27, 1987

WASHINGTON, July 26—
Although trade is hardly ever mentioned when poll takers ask Americans to name the nation's most important problem, it has emerged as the first issue to rouse serious debate among the 1988 Presidential contenders.

One reason, Democratic and Republican strategists agree, is the coincidence of calendar and geography: The first major test of strength for the candidates is in Iowa, where precinct caucuses for both parties will be held Feb. 8 and where stump speeches are tailored to voters whose farming livelihoods stir more than a passing interest in trade policy.

One month later, on March 8, primaries will be held in most Southern states, where farming and textiles are major industries. Timing of Primaries

''It works as an issue because of the way the primaries are set up,'' said Robert Squier, a Democratic political consultant. ''There are real pockets of unemployment in Iowa, and even where there are not, there is the perception of a problem. In the South it works because of the concern about textile imports.''

But trade has also drawn candidates' attention because the politicking in the heartland has coincided with the passage of major trade legislation in Washington. Protracted debate over the legislation, approved by the House in April and the Senate last week, as well as the threat of President Reagan's veto of whatever bill the House-Senate conference brings forth, have put a spotlight on a subject often regarded as too complex or arcane for popular consumption.

In the process, the candidates have been forced to adopt, define and defend trade positions that differentiate them from each other and from the Administration, regardless of whether they consider the trade issue central to their campaigns. That is particularly true of the two Republican and five Democratic candidates who are members of Congress, ''Trade has its own life,'' said Thomas E. Mann, executive director of the American Political Science Association. ''You wouldn't expect to see it move millions of people, or even hundreds or tens of thousands, in a primary. It is not the sort of issue you win a nomination on. But it is definitely a gut issue among some groups.

''You're seeing Republicans scrambling to associate themselves with the Senate bill, and you can see the same kind of differentiation - although it's less extreme - beginning to happen in the Republican Party as you've seen with the Democrats.'' Gephardt at One End

Among Democrats, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri has long staked out a position viewed as the most ''protectionist.'' An amendment to the House trade bill bearing his name would require tough retaliation in the form of import quotas or tariffs against countries that deny American goods access to their markets.

At the ''free trade'' extreme is Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts, who points to his state's recent prosperity and argues that investment in education, job training and technology can accomplish the same economic revival for the country as a whole.

Mr. Dukakis advocates ''limited relief'' from foreign competition but says that industries benefiting from such relief must be required to invest and modernize and become competitive.

''Dukakis appeals to the part of the Democratic Party that worries about the price of BMW's and cappuccino machines,'' said Kevin P. Phillips, a Republican political analyst. ''Gephardt appeals to the part that worries about layoffs and plant closings. They are button A and button B on trade and the other Democratic candidates are in danger of being submerged by that polarization.'' Some Basic Themes

Yet examination of the trade positions espoused by the rest of the Democratic field suggests first that certain basic themes underlie the positions of all the Democratic candidates and, second, that Mr. Gephardt's position may be far from the most extreme of those considered protectionist.

For example, both the rhetoric and voting record of Senator Paul Simon of Illinois place him squarely with Mr. Gephardt on retaliation and even more firmly on the side of protecting aging industries that have been hurt by foreign competition.

Former Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona and Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado have each devised elaborate plans that would result in severely punitive tariff treatment of certain countries with which the United States trades.

Some of the major themes common among the Democrats include:

* Linking America's $170 billion trade deficit to the Federal budget deficit and putting the blame for both on misguided Administration fiscal policies. Mr. Dukakis likes to quote the Commerce Department as saying that a critical element in producing the trade imbalance ''was the uninterrupted expansion of the Federal budget deficit from about $60 billion in 1980 to over $200 billion in 1985.''

* Urging ''investment'' in education, job training and research and development as essential to restoring American competitiveness. These calls are often broadened to include health-care and child-care programs,